Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed to answer a series of questions submitted by e-mail to her presidential campaign. Here is a transcript of the The Chronicle’s exchange with the Democratic senator from New York.
Q. Did your college experiences, in any way, shape your views about the federal government’s role in higher education — or is that something that came later?
A. Wellesley nurtured, challenged and guided me; it instilled in me, not just knowledge, but a reserve of sustaining values. My ideas, new and old, were tested daily by political science professors who pushed me to expand my understanding of the world and examine my own preconceptions just when current events provided more than enough material. I believe everyone should have the opportunity I did to attain a high quality education.
Q. In your commencement speech, you spoke about working within the system to bring about change. Why did you favor this approach over the more confrontational approach of some of your peers?
A. My experience in college was that, while we did have demonstrations, change was usually a product of discussion in the decision-making process. I have long believed that politics is the only route in a democracy for peaceful and lasting change. While I did not always imagine that I would ever run for office, I always knew I wanted to participate as both a citizen and an activist. And I have learned in the years since then that change is possible within the system. Right after law school, I was very proud to contribute to passing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by conducting research on the number of kids with disabilities who were being kept out of school. I was proud to continue my work in Arkansas where I helped reform schools and improve early childhood education. As First Lady, I helped create SCHIP, Vaccines for Children, Early Head Start, and the Adoption Incentives Program, which more than doubled the number of children adopted out of foster care. I’ve been able to achieve meaningful change by working within the system, and I will continue to as president.
Q. One of your accomplishments at Wellesley was convincing the administration to admit more black students. Do you support affirmative action today?
A. I believe in affirmative action that opens the doors of opportunity, but I do not support quotas. For millions of Americans, affirmative action knocked down the barriers of the past that prevented so many of us from attending college, or working in our country’s leading companies, or starting a small business. I joined in the Michigan affirmative action cases, arguing that diversity in higher education is a vital national interest. The benefits of diversity for our country are real – not only for all students in higher education, but also in our military and in our marketplace. As President, I will continue to make America live up to its ideals. I will support strong and sensible affirmative action. I will call upon corporate America to be as diverse as the customers it serves. And I will build an administration that not only looks like America, but truly reflects America’s diverse backgrounds and values. I was distressed by the recent Supreme Court decision that held that our cities are not allowed to take voluntary reasonable steps to build diverse student bodies in public schools. I would appoint justices to the Court who understood and embraced the principles and opportunities of Brown v. Board. I have also put forward a Youth Opportunity Agenda to invest in early childhood education, mentoring and apprenticeship initiatives, summer scholarships and more so that ultimately we can close the achievement gap and ensure that every young person has an equal chance to live up to their potential.
Q. You have offered a “Student Borrower Bill of Rights.” What led you to offer this bill? Do you feel that borrowers rights are being abridged now?
A. Too many borrowers around the country are overly burdened or treated unfairly as they repay their student loans. I’ve heard from people who have seen their interst rates and monthly payments rise significantly and unexpectedly, making it impossible for them to afford their monthly payments. More than ever, students are financing their college costs by borrowing as the cost of college is rising and grants are becoming less readily available. The burden of student loan debt alone can put people in economic handcuffs and force them out of important, but low-paying professions, such as social workers, teachers and police officers. Over the past decade, the average debt burden for college graduates has increased 58 percent, after accounting for inflation. And today, the average borrower graduating from a public four- year institution owes $15,500, while one in ten students owe $33,000 or more. The struggle of loan repayment may even force students to delay their goals of purchasing a home. The Student’s Bill of Rights will make it easier for students to repay loans and give them a basic set of enforceable rights. This bill would give student borrowers the right to fair monthly payments that do not exceed a percentage of their incomes, as well as access to fair interest rates and fees. The bill would also give students the right to shop in a free marketplace for their lender and to borrow without exploitation. Finally, the bill will give students access to better information about their loans to provide students with better options during repayment.
Q. You’ve also focused on nontraditional students. Why are nontraditional students a priority for you?
A. I’ve often said the nontraditional student is becoming the traditional student. More than 50 percent of students are now going to college later in life, working full or part time while they attend, or raising children, and this is particularly true among minority populations. I also hear from people all along the campaign trail who want to upgrade their skills midway through their careers so they can change jobs and grow professionally. I believe we have to create a robust system of lifelong learning to help prepare every American to compete in the global economy. Yet, our federal higher education system discourages school from innovating in this area. I was pleased to spearhead an effort to make Pell Grants available year round so that nontraditional students can complete their degrees as quickly as possible. This legislation passed the Senate in July. But there is a lot more than we can do. I want to reduce the work penalty so students who need to work in order to provide for their families don’t see that income counting against them when it comes to financial aid. I also want to find ways to support colleges that are designing night courses and other flexible scheduling, like compressed courses, and providing child care, in order to make it possible for all students even those with significant family responsibilities to complete their degrees. College is the gateway to opportunity in America and we can and should do more to open that gate wider for those who can’t afford it.
Q. What do you think should be done about rising college costs?
A. The costs of college have risen by more than one third at public schools and 50% at private schools since 2000. Yet, the Pell Grant and other federal financial assistance programs have failed to keep pace with the rises in cost. I’ve fought to lower interest rates, expand access to grants and campus-based aid, including Pell Grants, work-study, Perkins loans, and more. I introduced legislation to raise the maximum Pell Grant to $11,5000 in order to keep pace with the rising cost of college. I have also championed legislation to expand the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits in order to make college more accessible for students from low-income communities. I will be unveiling a plan to make college affordable and accessible for all during my campaign.
Q. Do you support an expansion of Direct Lending (and a shrinking of the FFELP program)?
A. Yes. I have supported legislation that would provide incentives for colleges to participate in the Direct Loan program rather than the private loan program. The Direct Loan program is significantly more cost effective for taxpayers than the private loan program — saving $.14 on every dollar loaned when compared with the private loan program. I supported a proposal to take those savings and give them back to colleges and universities who switched to the Direct Loan program to be distributed to students as need-based aid. We have seen serious abuses within the private loan program recently — companies going to extraordinary and unethical extremes to get their loans onto preferred lenders lists and to ultimately increase their loan volume. I want the loan programs to compete with the Direct Loan program on a level playing field. And I want each student to make the best choice for themselves after receiving fair, complete, clear and understandable information about their student loan options.